Avengers: Endgame, a Response in List Form.

It has now been four months since I sat in a darkened theater with a fellow comic fan and watched the film both of us had been eagerly and giddily anticipating for a year. Having both become equally obsessed with the previous "Avengers: Infinity War," a movie we both watched over and over in anticipation of an epic conclusion, our excitement could not have reached a higher fever pitch.

The film, clocking in at just over three hours, set out to bring an open-ended conclusion to eleven years worth of interconnected storytelling in one massive, never-before-done cinematic achievement. When it was over, we left the theater in silence, walking past a long line of moviegoers who had come for the next showing. It wasn't until we got in the car that I spoke first.

Sighing, I said, "Y'know. I don't know that I liked it."

"Me neither," he said.

And with that dual admission, I felt my soul sink into a strange sadness that did not let up for two months.

I won't go into my feelings too much in this post but I will admit to feeling incredibly letdown. Predictably, the early reactions to the film were glowing and positive, but once the "feels" wore off, more people started sounding like me. And, of course, they were attacked for it. It was "The Dark Knight" all over again, except perhaps a bit less psychotic. I touched on that portion here.

My movie buddy, who has not seen the movie a second time, has settled into a bit of spin doctoring, where he insists the movie was always expected to be what we saw. Maybe, but that doesn't mean it should have been. That doesn't mean we should excuse lazy writing and arrogant presumption on the part of the filmmakers and, in particular, the screenwriters.

That's why, now that I have what I feel is sufficient emotional distance, I can now list my issues with the film in detail based on my criteria for successful drama.

TONE: One would have to be insane or utterly clueless to expect this movie to maintain the tone of "Infinity War." This is a film about the aftermath of its predecessor's events. The tone should be more somber, more serious and, sadly, less entertaining. That last point isn't a fault of the filmmakers, it's a necessity based on the story. So, the tone of the film is appropriate and mostly effective.

PLOT: Not to be confused with the next point, the movie's plot is a bit of a mess. That would be okay with a stronger story, but in this case there are far too many contrivances and very little realized potential. To start, the idea that the events of the previous movie aren't easily repaired sound great until you realize the plot involves the heroes easily repairing the events of the previous movie. Once the initial, relatively interesting world-building takes place, the film's plot merely dumps the viewer from one uninspired set to another all so it can end with a big battle sequence. The various character sub-plots such as "Fat Thor" and his PTSD (Marvel really seems to think trauma is good for a few laughs) and Professor Hulk definitely have their negative aspects but they don't ruin the overall plot.

STORY: The filmmakers had one job: Maintain the quality of "Infinity War" while telling a different kind of story in the sequel. Due to several questionable story element choices, they failed. How did they fail? For one thing, they got lazy. Time travel to the past is just about the most tiresome trope in science fiction these days and this film embraces it like a lost lover. Of all the alternative solutions to the problem our heroes faced (I came up with five without even thinking hard) time travel was what the writers settled on? I say "settled on" because I want to believe they're smart enough to have considered other options before using one any first semester hack could have come up with. As mentioned in the "Plot" section, "Endgame" moves from one lackluster location to another because the story dictates time hopping. And since the easiest way to get people to like you these days appears to involve turning up the nostalgia meter to eleven, the second hour of the film involves one previously seen location or scene after another until it feels as if this is not so much a sequel as a greatest hits collection. The earlier promising setup of a trip into the Quantum Realm heralded by Antman's return thanks to a rat is abandoned in favor of one of the most interminable hours in MCU history.  That brings me to the next point,

PACING: Oy vey. Sluggish in places, "Endgame" was never supposed to be the pulse-pounding actioner that "Infinity War" was. But the pace never seems to pick up even when the big battle is happening. The part where present-day Thanos is found is over before it starts, plunging the remainder of the film into sloth-like discussion scenes and supposedly touching moments such as Tony Stark's experience in 1970. Unlike "Infinity War," this movie feels like every single one of its 180 minutes.

ACTING: The MCU actors know their roles and play them well. If they seem less present this time, it feels more like an editing issue than a performance one. Although I'd be lying if I didn't admit that Downey seems tired and ready to move on. Interestingly, Paul Rudd's performance is the most dynamic this time, maybe because they gave me him more to do. Josh Brolin, who turned in a phenomenal performance last time around, seems lethargic and bored now.

DIRECTION/EDITING: The Russo Brothers are hit and miss for me. They seem to observe the so-called "Star Trek" rule where every other film is good. This time around they do a fine job but nothing stands out. The editing, however, is where my friend I agreed the major issues with "Endgame" are to be found. Scenes that should be shorter are far too long and scenes that needed to be longer are over much too quickly.

ACTION: Well, there isn't much. Most of the film consists of long stretches of would-be witty dialogue and discussing the plot as if we the viewers forgot it after five minutes. Action gives way to suspense in this installment, which is perfectly fine. There was no way they were going to top what was done in "Infinity War." The problem is, the only real suspense takes place in small pockets rather than a continuing thread and by the time the movie really decides to become full-on suspenseful, it gives way to the required big battle scene. And that scene, which is admittedly well-staged and executed, feels old hat after the less choreographed scenes in the previous film. It still thrills but there was a sense of "Okay, let's get this part over with" when I watched it.

DIALOGUE: "Infinity War" is so quotable. So were the first two Avengers films. But other than a couple lines of dialogue here and there, "Endgame's" dialogue is rather run of the mill. Even the one-liners for which the MCU has unfortunately become synonymous are pretty stale and lame this time around. One longs for Joss Whedon's self-indulgent yet witty dialogue writing.

I know this all sounds like I hated the movie. I didn't. It was entertaining. Had it been a stand-alone film I might have enjoyed it more, but it wasn't and it had a lot more to live up to than that. The filmmakers played it far too safe with the writing aspect. Killing off some beloved characters who aren't coming back in real life is not a substitute for risk-taking. And the strength of the overall story arc makes even a misstep like this, much like the stunningly  mediocre "Captain Marvel" still worth watching.

But I have learned to not let near perfection cause me to assume the follow-up will be just as good but in a different way, 'Nuff said.